[WAD] Suggestion about ABM Interception with Fragmented Warhead

[erick33]

Currently, the CMO system finds it very difficult to intercept ballistic missiles using fragmentary warheads. For example, intercepting Houthi ASBMs with the SM-6 requires firing approximately six rounds or more. Additionally, even if a fragmentary warhead missile intercepts a ballistic missile, it only inflicts minor damage, resulting in a slight increase in the circular error probable (CEP). The fact that fragmentary warheads can intercept ballistic missiles has already been demonstrated in practice by systems like PAC-2 and SM-6.

Therefore, I believe this aspect needs revision.

I have been considering a method to divide the interception probability of ballistic missiles based on their range. For instance, for SRBMs like SCUD, there could be an 80% probability of interception upon hit, while for MRBMs it could be 50%, and for ICBMs, even lower probabilities. This approach might be appropriate since the descent speed and durability of ballistic missiles vary depending on their range.

[thewood1]

Wasn't the PAC-3 developed with a hit-to-kill warhead because PAC-2's tendency was to only damage and deflect missiles?

[erick33]

Wasn't the PAC-3 developed with a hit-to-kill warhead because PAC-2's tendency was to only damage and deflect missiles?

The fact that the PAC-2, using frag warheads, was not always able to perfectly intercept ballistic missiles is true. However, it did manage to successfully intercept a significant number of them. As seen in the Gulf War incidents involving Scud missiles, even a small probability of failure could result in substantial damage, which is why the PAC-3 was developed with a more reliable hit-to-kill warhead

[thewood1]

Intercept is not the same as destroy. I'm sure they intercepted them. I know when I fire SM-6s at BMs in CMO, I rarely get an outright kill. I get a lot of significant deviations.

[thewood1]

JUst a CMO representation of a short range ASBM attack with 8 missiles. Defense fired 16 SM-6s. 6 ASBMs were hit and deflected by the first assigned missile. In most cases a second missile hit and killed the ASBM. 4 SM-6s outright missed out of 16 fired. I think 2 ASBMs splashed in empty sea due to being deflected. That seems reasonable.

I did note that a few SM-3s fired and hit. When they hit, they kill immediately.

Screenshot 2024-10-27 122019.jpg (362.16 KiB) Viewed 299 times

My numbers are a rough guess. Didn't do any high function math.

[erick33]

JUst a CMO representation of a short range ASBM attack with 8 missiles. Defense fired 16 SM-6s. 6 ASBMs were hit and deflected by the first assigned missile. In most cases a second missile hit and killed the ASBM. 4 SM-6s outright missed out of 16 fired. I think 2 ASBMs splashed in empty sea due to being deflected. That seems reasonable.

I did note that a few SM-3s fired and hit. When they hit, they kill immediately.


Screenshot 2024-10-27 122019.jpg


My numbers are a rough guess. Didn't do any high function math.

I think there's a lot of luck. I tested it and it doesn't completely destroy even if you fire three shots at a time, and it often hits the target as it is. As you can see in the picture, most of the time, it's Minor deflection, and in this case, it easily hits the destroyer-sized target

In addition, with the RV falling at high speed, the frag warhead significantly affects the trajectory of the RV and allows it to miss its target on its own. Under the current CMO mechanism, despite these features, the deterrent seems to be too low

[Dimitris]

Some background on why & how we model "glancing blows" (non-destructive impacts) on ballistic targets: https://command.matrixgames.com/?p=4076 (section "ABM Warhead Modifiers").

[thewood1]

"Under the current CMO mechanism, despite these features, the deterrent seems to be too low"

Well lets see some tests. I ahve no issues killing or moving off target any ASBMs with SM-6s. Lets see what you find.

[Dimitris]

Related article: https://www.reuters.com/world/fearing-c ... 024-10-25/

The PAC-3 is shorter-ranged than the Navy's SM-6 missiles and cannot reach into space.
But steering rockets near the nose make it more agile, and destruction of the threat is more likely because of its "hit to kill" concept, in which the interceptor strikes the target rather than explode near it, said a missile defense program director with direct knowledge of the Aegis system.
Facing advanced Chinese weapons, including hypersonic glide vehicle warheads, those qualities "supplement the existing missiles on a U.S. ship very well" by being able to more easily hit high-speed, maneuvering ballistic missiles and destroy them, said the program director.

CMO models the benefits of both a HTK warhead (compared to continuous-rod or directional-frag) and also the enhanced maneuvering afforded by non-aerodynamic control (usually small RCS-style thrusters) at high altitudes or at edge-of-envelope shots where kinetic energy has been exhausted.

This is why missiles like PAC-3, Aster-15/30 or 9M96 can effectively intercept highly-agile targets even at long range & high altitude, whereas SM-2/6 effectiveness drops sharply with increasing range/altitude.

[erick33]

Related article: https://www.reuters.com/world/fearing-c ... 024-10-25/

The PAC-3 is shorter-ranged than the Navy's SM-6 missiles and cannot reach into space.
But steering rockets near the nose make it more agile, and destruction of the threat is more likely because of its "hit to kill" concept, in which the interceptor strikes the target rather than explode near it, said a missile defense program director with direct knowledge of the Aegis system.
Facing advanced Chinese weapons, including hypersonic glide vehicle warheads, those qualities "supplement the existing missiles on a U.S. ship very well" by being able to more easily hit high-speed, maneuvering ballistic missiles and destroy them, said the program director.

CMO models the benefits of both a HTK warhead (compared to continuous-rod or directional-frag) and also the enhanced maneuvering afforded by non-aerodynamic control (usually small RCS-style thrusters) at high altitudes or at edge-of-envelope shots where kinetic energy has been exhausted.

This is why missiles like PAC-3, Aster-15/30 or 9M96 can effectively intercept highly-agile targets even at long range & high altitude, whereas SM-2/6 effectiveness drops sharply with increasing range/altitude.

Thank you for your response! I can now understand the mechanisms that have been implemented.